Re: Must-Read Analytical Essays on the shruti--Vedas and Upanishads
Vedic Texts: The Atmoshpere: RV 1.002.01
T.Williams' Criticism and Gurudatta's reply
paNDita gurudatta vidyArti in his exposition of the above RgVeda verse we read above, stated that the English word 'air' cannot be construed as having the same meaning as the Vedic yaugika word 'vAyu' because 'air' is "ugly, un-meaning, inexact and half-articulate". This was enough to provoke a criticism of the exposition by one Mr.T.Williams, who sought to deny GDV's derivation of the roots and meanings of the word 'vAyu'. Perhaps Westerners couldn't stand the thinking that the Hindu Vedic Rishis must have known in the days of yore, what only the western science could unravel.
Here is the criticism and the replies to it from GDV and his editor AP:
• TW: Mr. Guru Datta says that the Vedic word 'Vayu' conveys meaning of "a light, mobile, tremor-communicating, effluvia-carrying medium." He has no other authority for this meaning than the verbal root from which the word 'Vayu' is derived.
Reply by GDV: No other authority, it must be remembered, is at all required. For, in the Vedic literature the yaugika sense of the word is the only guarantee of its correctness, and in some cases, is the only sense possible to give to a word.
• TW: Now, sir, whatever meaning the word 'Vayu' may have on account of its derivation, that very same meaning would the English word 'wind' have and also the Greek word, Englished as 'air', for both these words have the same root as 'Vayu'. which root is no more less than that represented by the Samskrita 'vA'.
Reply by GDV: This is incorrect, for, it is only proper to take that sense of the word only, which is recalled into consciousness of those who employ the word whenever the word is spoken. Now, the word 'wind' does not recall any such meaning in the minds of its speakers. But in the case of Vedic word, (which as Vedic are quite distinct from laukika) no sense is at all recalled, unless it be the very sense accruing to it from its derivation. This essential ditference between laukika and Vedic words, the critic does not understand, and hence his mistake.
• TW: Mr.Guru Datta is wrong in saying that the Nirutakara derives 'Vayu' from the root 'vA' to move, to carry odoriferous matter, or from 'vaH' 'to communicate tremors.' YAska, the prince of Niruktakaras, only gives 'vA' (Nir. 110,2) and his commentator adds to 'vA', 'gatigand-hanayos' quoting from Ad.P. It is probable that this 'gandhana', suggested Mr.Datta's 'odoriferous matter', but he ought to know that it is now a settled thing that the word 'gandha'--smell, comes from the verbal root 'gandh', which never means to smell, but 'to go or to hurt, or to ask'; and 'gandhana' is from this verbal root and not from the noun 'gandha.'
Reply by GDV: The critic is wrong when he thinks that the author of the Vedic Text No.I confounds 'gandhana' with the noun 'gandha'. For, it is 'gandhana' which means a form of 'sUchana' producing that form of consciosness which is called smelling.
• TW: But this is not his great mistake in his derivation of 'Vayu': it is in his saying that 'vaH' is given by a Niruktakara as an alternate root! What is his authority for this? He should have given chapter and verse for his statement. The derivation from 'vA' is clear enough and the only one given by the chief Niruktakara YAska, or by any other commentator that I have yet seen.
Reply by AP: Is it not strange to find that the critic should betray the very same ignorance of Nirukta with which he charges Pt.Guru Datta. Fop 'vA' is not the only root given by Niruktakara, as the critic would suppose, but in one place whose reference is not given in the text, the Niruktakara derives it from at least these, 'vati vetti and eti', I quote the passage from memory, "Vayurvater vetter vosyadgati karmanah, eteriti sthaulashtive." (The actual passage is: "vaayur.vaater.veter.vaa.syaad.gati.karmaNah/(10,1); eter.iti.sthaulaasthiivir.anarthako.vakaarah/(10,1)"--sd)
• TW: It is from this root that 'wind' and 'air' are derived, so that I repeat, whatever Mr.Datta has to say for 'Vayu', that is true, that must also be said for those two words. His vituperate reference to the word 'air' is both foolish and ignorant.
Reply by AP: Mr.Williams must be a great philologist to derive 'wind' and 'air' from the same root.
Mr.Williams could well have spared such harsh words. They cannot prove his contention.
• TW: Now, from what I have said, there is nothing specially to be attributed to the Vedas because this word 'Vayu' occurs in it as an appellation of the Atmosphere. Long before Madhucchandas composed, or, if Mr.Datta will have it, saw this Rk., the idea of the word 'Vayu' as an appellation for the atmosphere was the common property of all the Indo-European peoples.
Reply by GDV: What does vague philology know of human history? Long ages after Madduchhandas or earlier rishis saw this Rk., the European nations had not even assumed their existence, what to say of "the idea of the word vayu as an appellation of the atmosphere" being the common property of all the Indo-European peoples.
रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥
To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.
--viShNu purANam
Bookmarks